1995 Audi A6 Avant 2.0 SE
#1
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Bedfordshire
Posts: 1,209
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1995 Audi A6 Avant 2.0 SE
Hi everybody.
Anyone own or owned one of these tanks?
I'm considering getting one for the dog!!
Any good/bad points?
Are they woefully underpowered? 130bhp I think.
Do they hold their miles well?
Anything to specifically look out for when I inspect the car?
Do they have timing chains or belts?
The one I've seen has a nice leather interior. The front seats look down right sporty - is this normal or have they been swopped over from something else?
Thanks guys.
BrettC
Anyone own or owned one of these tanks?
I'm considering getting one for the dog!!
Any good/bad points?
Are they woefully underpowered? 130bhp I think.
Do they hold their miles well?
Anything to specifically look out for when I inspect the car?
Do they have timing chains or belts?
The one I've seen has a nice leather interior. The front seats look down right sporty - is this normal or have they been swopped over from something else?
Thanks guys.
BrettC
Last edited by BrettC; 04 October 2006 at 11:15 AM.
#2
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Chesterfield
Posts: 2,939
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I hope it is cheap? You ideally need to ensure it has had the belt done [not sure what or when myself]. The 2.0 will do nothing to the gallon and will be very slow. As long as it is cheap and has had major service bits done - why not [Considered a Volvo, they are cheap, often well serviced, very durable more so than an Audi of that era ]
#3
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Bedfordshire
Posts: 1,209
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks mate....not looking good then.
The one I was interested in had 130,000miles and was up for £1395. Too much?
Full AUDI history though, it looks very tidy. However if its going to cost me an arm and a leg to run then maybe I should look elsewhere.
Can't do volvo mate, Saab owners club member! That's more of the dark side then scoob owners getting an Evo!
Thanks again.
The one I was interested in had 130,000miles and was up for £1395. Too much?
Full AUDI history though, it looks very tidy. However if its going to cost me an arm and a leg to run then maybe I should look elsewhere.
Can't do volvo mate, Saab owners club member! That's more of the dark side then scoob owners getting an Evo!
Thanks again.
#4
Couple of things, Can your dog drive? wow.(or should I say woof).
Seriously tho. these cars represent fantastic value for money these days, they will handle loads of miles(and loads of loads) if you see what I mean.
The suspension bushes can be a weak point so check for rattles squeeks etc. but generally good and better to drive than the equiv. Volvo etc.imho. Must be cheap tho.
Seriously tho. these cars represent fantastic value for money these days, they will handle loads of miles(and loads of loads) if you see what I mean.
The suspension bushes can be a weak point so check for rattles squeeks etc. but generally good and better to drive than the equiv. Volvo etc.imho. Must be cheap tho.
#7
Originally Posted by BrettC
Thanks wheelshop.
Do you reckon £1395 is too much?
Do you reckon £1395 is too much?
Trending Topics
#8
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Bedfordshire
Posts: 1,209
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks guys
Yep, it is just the asking price. Due a service in 2000 miles ish so there is that looming but does have MOT and tax and apprently isn't in need of anything.
Yep, it is just the asking price. Due a service in 2000 miles ish so there is that looming but does have MOT and tax and apprently isn't in need of anything.
Last edited by BrettC; 04 October 2006 at 11:44 AM.
#9
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Scoobynet
Posts: 5,387
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
£1395 sounds like a fair price to me, and at 130k its ready worn-in and has probably another 70-100k of reliable motoring if you service it correctly
Speaking from experience here- had a 2.0 Audi 80 for a while and that had 250k on it when it went - new clutch at 180k, but otherwise just general servicing items!
Speaking from experience here- had a 2.0 Audi 80 for a while and that had 250k on it when it went - new clutch at 180k, but otherwise just general servicing items!
#11
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Worthing..
Posts: 7,575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by BrettC
Anyone own or owned one of these tanks?
I'm considering getting one for the dog!!
#12
PMSL @ Pete, superb
I used to have the old 100 on which it was based which was a good car, neraly bought a 2.6 auto estate, minter at a reasonable price, now the 100 was good compared to the crap I had before but I drove this 2.6 and it was not up to much, why. My old 5 cylinder 2.0 100 manual seemed faster and sounded better (de catted, sounded like a Quattro)
Engine was lethargic, didnt want to rev and wasnt that powerful anyway (150 bhp in a hefty car), the autobox did its best to remove any little bit of enjoyment there was, felt very slow. The 2.0 is the four cylinder Audi unit, never tried one of these but it may be a bit underpowered and thrashy in something so big, the 5 cyl coped with it well though even though on paper it was 25 bhp less, just goes to show you shouldnt buy a car just on performance/power figures, its all about the delivery.
The suspension is very basic on these, the ride isnt that good, they will go round a corner but its not what you could call fun, remember its basically a 1982 Audi 100.
They are however, well made and pretty indestructable, the interior is nice (dash is lovely and swoopy)
If ou arent bothered about the driving experience and just want a reliable and worthy solid car, go for it, but drive it first, I nearly said I would have it as seen, hated it when I drove it, proper old mans car, the 2.0e sporty one may well be a lot better.
I used to have the old 100 on which it was based which was a good car, neraly bought a 2.6 auto estate, minter at a reasonable price, now the 100 was good compared to the crap I had before but I drove this 2.6 and it was not up to much, why. My old 5 cylinder 2.0 100 manual seemed faster and sounded better (de catted, sounded like a Quattro)
Engine was lethargic, didnt want to rev and wasnt that powerful anyway (150 bhp in a hefty car), the autobox did its best to remove any little bit of enjoyment there was, felt very slow. The 2.0 is the four cylinder Audi unit, never tried one of these but it may be a bit underpowered and thrashy in something so big, the 5 cyl coped with it well though even though on paper it was 25 bhp less, just goes to show you shouldnt buy a car just on performance/power figures, its all about the delivery.
The suspension is very basic on these, the ride isnt that good, they will go round a corner but its not what you could call fun, remember its basically a 1982 Audi 100.
They are however, well made and pretty indestructable, the interior is nice (dash is lovely and swoopy)
If ou arent bothered about the driving experience and just want a reliable and worthy solid car, go for it, but drive it first, I nearly said I would have it as seen, hated it when I drove it, proper old mans car, the 2.0e sporty one may well be a lot better.
#14
Yep, long time for me, 18 months, doing 60 odd miles a day in it, superb on the motorway (no tricky corners).
Just get another Saab, same money and way better engines, you need that turbo torque to shift a big car with a 4 cylinder engine, in fact its better than a wheezy old six cyl 12 valve.
Just get another Saab, same money and way better engines, you need that turbo torque to shift a big car with a 4 cylinder engine, in fact its better than a wheezy old six cyl 12 valve.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Uncle Creepy
Other Marques
43
27 December 2015 04:02 PM
wilki
Non Car Related Items For sale
0
17 September 2015 11:00 AM